Act of Parliament for poverty, as unable to support the rank of a peer, but this case is an isolated fact in history.* 66 The eldest son of a peer is a commoner when not called in the lifetime of his father to the upper house,† as generally happens in the case of eldest sons of dukes, marquesses, and earls, and which has even occurred on two occasions in the case of simple barons. The sons of barons in law, have no further privileges than the commonalty generally. Every Englishman, therefore, not having a seat in the upper house, is a commoner; in the stricter sense a commoner," is one who has the right to co-operate, in the capacity of elector, in the construction of the lower house. Amongst commoners the gentry hold the foremost position; but do not, as in the case of the nobility, constitute a political "class." In conjunction with the nobility, however, they constitute that political aristocracy which governs the country. The gentry, as such, have never enjoyed any special privileges, and since the Middle Ages, have been liable to all the imposts of the State.§ The power of the nobility and gentry is founded upon large possessions and a higher standard of education. The census of England and Wales for the year 1851, gives the number of 17,047 landed proprietors, amongst whom the smaller yeomen, cultivating their own land, form but a small minority, ever decreasing. The greater land-owners, who chiefly live upon their rents and seldom cultivate their own property, savants, lawyers, merchants, officers, and clergy constitute the "gentry," from whose ranks the nobility is recruited. "As for gentlemen, they bee made good cheape in England, for whosoever studieth in the laws of the realme, who studieth in the universities, who professeth liberall sciences, and, to be short, who can live idlely, and without manuale labour, and will beare the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called "Master," for that is the title. which men give to esquires and other gentlemen, and shall bee taken for a gentleman." || This notion prevailed so far back as the commencement of the *Bowyer, 453. + Russell, Eng. Const., c. i. Bl. i. 173. § Hallam, Const. H., i. 160. Nam quantum ad nobiles spectat, vili pretio hic in Anglia fiunt; quisquis enim legibus patriis operam navat, quisquis in academiis incumbit litteris, quis quis artes liberales profitetur, neque (ut verbo dicam) manuum labore vel artificio aliquo victum quæritat; ille, si personam sustinere et impensas quas solent nobiles facere velit, dominus vocabitur (quæ vox nobilibus armigerisque tribuitur), et nobilis ipse recensebitur.-Anglia Descriptio, B. I, c. 20, T. Smith. 9 17th century. The difference between a gentleman and a nongentleman is of a social as well as political nature; the expression "he is no gentleman," comprising in itself a complete social excommunication: hence the English proverb, "The king truly may make one a nobleman but not a gentleman." From the nobility downwards, the sons of peers and the higher state officials are now numbered in the ranks of the gentry. The knights banneret held a distinguished position amongst the gentry; if created by the king on the battle-field, they took precedence of all other gentlemen. The title has now become antiquated from the fact that no sovereign, since the middle of the last century, has been actually present on the field.* Baronets were first created by James I. in 1611, when he was in want of money to reduce the province of Ulster. Baronets, on this account, have the arms of Ulster-a bloody hand-on their family escutcheon.† The dignity is heritable according to the rules of succession to real property. There are now about eight hundred baronets in England.‡ The "Knights of the Bath," so called because previous to initiation they went through the ceremony of bathing, belong to one of the military orders founded by Henry IV., and revived by George I. in 1725. Since 1815 there are three classes of the order-grand cross (G.C.B.), which is granted to seventy-two persons at most; knights commanders (K.C.B.); and companions (C.B.) The most ancient of all noble titles is that of "knights bachelor" or "knights." Since Charles I., flagrantly chaffered for the title, it has fallen into discredit. The great mass of the gentry consists of "esquires" and " gentlemen."§ One is an "esquire" by virtue of a dignity or office, or by descent from peers and knights. The title "esquire" is no longer specially granted, and on writing to any gentleman the title "esquire" is employed as a matter of course. Thomas Smith || declares that "escuiers," " esquieres," or In the old records barons are distinguished by the appellation of “sire,” bannerets have only that of "monsieur." Bannerets were frequently summoned to the upper house of parliament, constituting a distinct class inferior to barons, though generally named together and ultimately confounded with them. + Bl. i. 104. May, Const. Hist., i. 268. § Milton, in the discourse of Satan, gives the most perfect expression to the English consciousness of social difference in rank: "If not equal all, yet free, Equally free for orders and degrees c. 19. "squires" do not constitute any special class, and are generally so styled by virtue of some office. The distinction of rank has only any importance at court and on occasion of public festivals. Next to the gentry come the "yeomen" or "peasantry," who possess free land worth forty shillings yearly. This important and influential class, since the time of the Tudors, is gradually disappearing. At The "copyholders," who have one-eighth of the entire land, were originally "villeins" bound to the soil. They are now protected in their possession by force of "prescription" on showing, by copy of court roll, that they and their forefathers had been in possession from time immemorial. From the decline of serfdom they remained subject to every kind of customary service.* the present day even, copyholders are subject to certain fines on alienation and to heriots, and the lord has the right of distraint.ț Since the statute of quia emptores no manor can be created, and consequently all copyhold estates are of a date prior to 1290. By recent legislation "enfranchisement" of copyhold land may be compelled either at the instance of the tenant or of the lord. The word "farmer" is a general designation, but is particularly applied to those who hold land on a lease for years at a rack-rent. Their entire number amounts, in England and Wales, to more than half a million. Day-labourers, artizans, tradesmen, and artificers, since Henry V. c. 5, in civil and criminal suits, are to be indicated by the name of their trade or calling. The relation of servants to their masters is not of a purely contractual nature: Elizabeth decreed that the poorer class should be forced to work for hire. The compelling of pauper children to serve as apprentices and be educated for service is enforced by law even at the present day. For any misconduct on the part of agricultural labourers, they may be summarily punished by a magistrate, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Such punishment may likewise, according to George IV. c. 34 and 53, attach to servants who, having entered into a written contract to serve commit a breach thereof. *Very remarkable customs exist in Scotland, especially in the highlands, for instance, the duty of amusing (!) the lord by playing the bagpipes. Gneist, i. 241.-In contemplation of law a copyholder is only a tenant at the will of the lord according to the custom of the manor, the letting of the lands held by copy of court-roll being in the lord. CHAPTER IV. FREE LOCOMOTION-RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND TO CHANGE DOMICILE. Writ ne exeat-regno.-Right not to be sent out of the kingdom.-Settlement Act.— Before Charles II.-Statute of Charles II.-Law of Domicile.-Adam Smith's opinion touching these Laws.-Pashley's Reforms in the 18th century.-Poor Law of 1834.-Changes under Queen Victoria.-Announced withdrawal of the Law of Settlement. THE King of England, by means of a writ ne exeat regno, can forbid any subject whatsoever to quit the realm or to travel without his permission. Elizabeth acted severely towards even the lords and gentry, inasmuch as without her consent they could not leave England. During her reign Sir William Evers was subjected to punishment on account of a secret journey to Scotland. Even in the year 1700, the Duke of Shrewsbury required the special permission of William III. to enable him to travel abroad; in the year 1712, Marlborough could only succeed in obtaining a pass, in the face of strong opposition from many members of the cabinet. The price of such a pass then amounted from £6 upwards; it now costs 2s. The restriction on freedom of locomotion gave rise to the custom of many Englishmen travelling with passports from foreign ambassadors.* All these restrictions are now, happily, abolished. The Stuarts tried to restrain emigration. It is a well-known fact that Cromwell, in consequence of a prohibition issued by Charles I., was forced to remain in England. Now-a-days, vast numbers of Englishmen emigrate annually, without hindrance, to distant quarters of the world. Soldiers and sailors only may be sent by the sovereign out of the country against their will. On the other hand, the sovereign cannot, according to the Habeas Corpus Act, send anyone beyond the seas without his consent, neither as lord-lieutenant to Ireland, nor as ambassador abroad.† Parliament alone has power to banish an English subject; transportation is a measure introduced by special enactment of + Bowyer, 427. * Mahon, i. 18. parliament; such mode of punishment was unknown to the common law.* To realise the legal position of Englishmen it is needful to consider the Local Settlement Acts, however gloomy they may appear, and adverse to cherished views of English freedom. The picture of the English labourer hunted from parish to parish is quite as consistent with the truth as Chatham's famous saying: "Storm and rain may penetrate into the cottage of the English labourer, but the king cannot." In the classic period of English parliamentarism, the sovereign was not, so far as the English proletarians were concerned, an efficient agent either for good or for evil.† By reason of the system of frank-pledge prevailing in the tithings, hundreds, and counties, it was but natural that no district should be bound to take care of needy persons not belonging to it; so long, therefore, as needy persons existed in England, orders of removal were necessary to transport such needy persons from one parish to another.‡ As the poor increased these removals increased coincidently. But the rule remained in force, that when individuals became a burthen to the parish, in the event of their remaining, they were liable to removal. An obligation on the part of each parish to feed its own poor was first enforced in the reign of Elizabeth. From that time forth the right of removal has been, of course, treated more strictly; but this right became a weapon in the hands of the ruling gentry from the moment when they got the upper-hand, on the restoration of the Stuarts. After the return of the Stuarts the greater landowners, coincidently with the introduction of the corn-law, passed the notorious Law of Settlement (13 and 14 Charles II., c. 12), rendering the agricultural labourer a slave of the soil (gleba adscriptus) inasmuch as, ignoring the earlier principles of the common law and practice, it declared everyone who became a burthen to the parish liable to removal if they had not a settlement there. Legal settlement was acquired first, by birth; a child had his settlement, or prima facie domicile in the place where he first saw the light of day, until the contrary was shown; bastards could only have such "prima facie domicile." *Bl., i., 137. Second, by parentage; the children If we compare the English lower classes with those of Germany, we find greater rigorism practised against them in the island kingdom than elsewhere. Toulmin Smith, 416. |